Daily News

Maryland Lawmakers Reject Same-Sex 'Marriage' (7478)

Bill turned back in spite of support from Catholic governor, legislators.

Supporters of traditional marriage demonstrate in Annapolis, Md., prior to a March 11 debate in the Maryland House of Delegates. A bill, which would have made it legal for couples of the same sex to marry, was returned to committee March 11, tabling the legislation in Maryland for the rest of this year's session.

– CNS photo/George P. Matysek Jr., Catholic Review

ANNAPOLIS, Md. — The Maryland House of Delegates “killed” a bill Friday that sought to legalize same-sex “marriage” in the state.

The House of Delegates sent the bill back to the Judiciary Committee — a move described in The Washington Post as “an acknowledgment by supporters that it did not have sufficient votes to pass on the floor.” It was an unexpected conclusion to an intense political fight that pitted key Democratic lawmakers who are Catholic but whose votes were contrary to Church doctrine against the leaders of their Church.

Local Catholic pastors applauded the outcome, but they remain troubled by the disconnect between the public stance of the Maryland Catholic Conference and prominent Democrats like Gov. Martin O’Malley. Is the source of the problem a failure of catechesis or the triumph of partisan loyalties — or both? Certainly, the battle lines underscored the difficulty of changing minds and hearts in a society that increasingly views same-sex “marriage” as a fundamental civil right.

Reflecting on the lessons learned during the course of two political fights over legal same-sex “marriage” in the Archdiocese of Washington — the first in the District of Columbia and the second in Maryland — Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington acknowledged that Church leaders are on a sharp learning curve.

“When we began to address same-sex ‘marriage’ in the District, we thought we were dealing with an issue that was fairly well understood by our people — the definition of ‘marriage,’” recalled Cardinal Wuerl. “We learned we couldn’t take anything for granted in our catechesis. We have to find ways of speaking more clearly, directly and convincingly on this subject.”

Cardinal Wuerl noted that the archdiocesan website www.MarriageMattersDC.org provided bulletin inserts and other materials used to “educate our faithful on marriage.”

Not long ago, O’Malley, a familiar presence at St. Mary’s Church in Annapolis and a graduate of The Catholic University of America, expressed a decided preference for civil unions for same-sex couples.

But once the same-sex “marriage” effort gained traction, the governor promised to sign the bill if it reached his desk. “We need to find a way to support equal rights, and that is true when it comes to committed gay and lesbian couples and the unions in which they choose to enter and raise children and all the issues that go with that,” said the governor during a radio talk-show interview leading up to the vote.

Speaker Mike Busch, a St. Mary’s High School graduate who returned to teach and coach at his alma mater before assuming public office, was more upfront about endorsing the bill.

“I believe in equal civil rights and equal protection under the law for all Marylanders. While historically I supported civil unions, I am voting for this legislation because I feel it is important to ensure that all Marylanders have equal civil rights,” Busch wrote in an e-mail responding to a request for comment.

Deep Frustration

Father John Kingsbury, pastor of St. Mary’s, a 150-year old church located near the state Capitol and the governor’s residence, expressed deep frustration that Catholic legislators supported the bill.

“These individuals have been presented with the Catholic Church’s position — Archbishop O’Brien met with the governor,” Father Kingsbury confirmed. The priest said that he encouraged legislators to come to him with their questions regarding the issue. “I see their struggles, but I just can’t fathom supporting a law that violates my personal beliefs. I don’t understand that.”

Msgr. Edward Filardi, the pastor of Our Lady of Lourdes in Bethesda, Md., met with state Sen. Richard Madaleno, a graduate of Georgetown Preparatory School, a local Jesuit boys’ high school, and the bill’s original sponsor.

The pastor expressed real appreciation for Madaleno’s willingness to meet with him, despite their differences. In media interviews, Madaleno described himself as “married” to his same-sex partner of 10 years, but contended that the state ban on same-sex “marriage” made his partner a “legal stranger.”

Msgr. Filardi joined a large number of grassroots religious leaders speaking out against the redefinition of marriage. Just days before the critical vote, the Bethesda pastor participated in a prayer vigil at the Capitol alongside Protestant ministers from black churches that beseeched their delegates to oppose the bill.

A 2010 survey conducted by the Washington, D.C.-based Public Religion Research Institute revealed that white evangelicals, and to a lesser degree, African-American Protestants, are most likely to oppose same-sex “marriage,” while mainline Protestants and Catholics were more likely to support it. Most polls that chart similar trends do not specify whether the “Catholic” respondents actively practice their faith.

Msgr. Filardi suggested that this trend arose from a misunderstanding of what constitutes true Christian compassion. “For some, compassion is a capitulation to the demands of anyone who feels hurt. But compassion doesn’t mean compromising what is true or right.”

Earlier this year, Catholics for Equality, a liberal activist group, confirmed that a number of Catholic legislators already backed the bill, including Delegate Kathleen Dumais, the new vice chairwoman of the powerful House Judiciary Committee — and a graduate and a longtime board member of St. Vincent Pallotti High School in Laurel, Md.

O’Malley and Dumais did not respond to requests for comment.

Hope for Improved Catechesis

Father Joseph Palacios, a priest of the Los Angeles Archdiocese and an adjunct professor of liberal studies and Latin American studies at Georgetown University, is a founding member of Catholics for Equality. A statement by the priest on the group’s website sought to connect early American Catholics’ experience of religious intolerance with a modern trend of support for same-sex “marriage”: “Today’s Catholics are the most socially progressive Christian denomination in the U.S.”

Catholics for Equality, and the Maryland-based New Ways Ministry, which describes itself as a “gay-positive ministry of advocacy and justice” and was the subject of a rare 2010 statement by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops which clarified that it “has no approval or recognition from the Catholic Church,” often receive a platform in the local media. And advocates for traditional marriage fear that theological dissent has provided political cover for lawmakers, who hang back from tough legislative choices.

Advocates for traditional marriage hope that improved catechesis will help address these issues. At present, Cardinal Wuerl is working to implement the USCCB’s new catechetical framework, which mandates a comprehensive instruction in the sacraments — including marriage.

Andrew Turner, chairman of the religious studies department at Washington, D.C.’s Gonzaga College High School — where Gov. O’Malley spent his teenage years — outlines a sequential curriculum that presents the Church’s countercultural teaching on contentious issues like contraception and same-sex “marriage.”

Msgr. Filardi welcomed the newly fortified religious curriculum. But he said that the spectacle of “Catholic” politicians acquiescing to same-sex “marriage” suggests that “book learning” might not be enough: Catholic lawmakers need real backbone to survive in today’s aggressively secular environment.

“We’re not teaching people to suffer for what they believe,” observed Msgr. Filardi. “I love to study the lives of the saints, who would rather die than forsake their faith. They lived what they believed. How many of us are ready for that?”

Comments

“I’m able to try to obtain several alot more many on,’’ Hester told the particular Tribune relating to Monday. “I imagine I have very much kept in me. “At the same time, I do think We do need to have a new beginning.’’ Going into this 8th season, Hester features 12 month got out of with this get which has a structure earnings about $1.Eighty-five mil that will add up $2.94 thousand thousand resistant to the income top. However a piece of the dog chooses to continue to be with all the Has, she or he comprehends a realistic look at his own reducing purpose relating to offense. Hester, what individuals stuck a career-high 57 traverses during the past year, witnessed his / her receptions soak in order to 24 (career-low Ten.Some showrooms every single catch) in 2010 for the reason that Brandon Marshall (118 receptions) became the center in the wrongdoing. Hester experienced thoroughly brushed aside regarding wrongdoing, every so often. His own problems fitted when this details dull together for the period of adventures along with technique. “Not merely it yes <a >toms for cheap</a> 3rd thererrrs r, although the last number of quite a few years it’s been this way,’’ suggested Hester, so, who added radio that will this application around Two thousand and seven. “It came down to noticed that you demonstrate to, so why I became disappointed. “I’m definitely not creating any explanations. I do know a few of the is cast as I should make with regards to finding the actual football. However i basically had not been experience the item. My mind weren’t right now there much of the effort.’’ Ad units second-round draft find ended up being asked however, if he’d try to get a new swap. “It’s a prospect,’’ he said. “I’m devoted to my own company. Though the fans in addition to my best teammates be required to realize in which I am because of. “I wouldn’t like to walk away from this activity through some other year planning the way completed this season. It again mig <a >Christian Louboutin Homme</a> ht use a new commence some other place.’’ Latest Contains exclusive leagues manager May well DeCamillis features come to out over Hester. The actual three-time Seasoned Tank returner yet work with a American footbal checklist by way of 16 work kick revisit touchdowns in the face of without the need one further period. The full-blown probably are going to gain the dog many Community centre in Acclaim account. “He smiled and told me I’d significantly quit in doing my tank along with he would delight everyone rear,’’ Hester mentioned about DeCamillis’ information. “He says he would dislike to get instruction next to people.’’ Hester would an extra shot absolutely to make sure you coming back however, if this individual remains to be when using the Carries. “To boost the comfort in hand, in the event I am just even now at this point, I’d rather not have fun violation,’’ he was quoted saying. “I don’t even think my personal factor (about offensive) definitely will meet. I won’t seriously point out that along with the fresh felony, however via consider your experience, I additionally wouldn’t presume it would in good shape.’’ Yet portion of Hester would like substantiate their self as the pass catcher. He or she can also have considered coming back to assist you to cornerback, the location your dog playe <a >michael kors crossbody bag</a> g in the form of newbie park. “I’ve dreamed about which each 365 days,’’ Hester proclaimed regarding learning security. “If I bought proper strategy where by we’re also just about manned way up, Possible accomplish this by DB.’’ Where ever the guy eventually ends up actively playing upcoming couple of years and even which status the guy forms towards, Hester seems this figure holds together. He is not going to imagine grow older offers given to any will fall. “I nonetheless feel good,’’ Hester claimed. “When all of us play football, I am just always lunging out of the gym. I will not believe that I will be falling off, while using external thing.’’ But yet emotionally, Hester may need to jump on trace. “If I’m there, I would like to draw a further Really Tank label to our place,’’ he said. “I have a passion for all the enthusiast as well as program. But I should not enjoy this video game want I’ve a final year or two lacking wonderful. “I’ <a >longchamps sac</a> d a person whom runs incorrect sentiments and also sentiments. Once So i am thrilled and having entertainment, that illustrates. If Practical goal happy, the idea illustrates just as <a >longchamps sac</a> nicely.’‘vxmcclure@tribune.comTwitter @vxmcclure23

I have a friend who is looking for a good <a >Pensacola Local Band</a>. Any Ideas??

Posted by steve on Monday, Mar 28, 2011 9:43 AM (EST):

Jaroslaw,
If you would simply re-read your own postings, you would see your frequent “ad Hominim” attacks on other posters and your “kitchen sink” dumpings in attempts to disperse, blunt, dull, and otherwise obfuscate the blog contributions of the original tenor ot the article or of other posters. You do yourself and your arguements an intellectual disservice….. But, perhaps that is your goal?

Many of the arguments in these Blogs, not only yours, contains the tenor of childish tantrums and “my dad can beat up your dad” types of reasoning.

Enough !!! Raise the level of intellectual discourse !

Posted by Kevin Rahe on Sunday, Mar 27, 2011 11:15 PM (EST):

Jaroslaw,
I think you try to get a lot more mileage out of your facts than they’re able to provide, but I’m not disputing that they’re facts. The important thing to recognize, however, is that morality doesn’t flow from facts, any more than religion flows from science. When we teach our children what is right from what is wrong, we cannot depend on the results of some empirical study of the effects of the various choices available on a set of subjects on whom those choices were imposed, for that in itself would be… well… immoral. And if we say that what is right might be different for different people, then the facts don’t matter at all.—
Getting back to the issue of homosexuality, you suggest that there are biological differences between the brains of gay and straight men, yet earlier you also said that, “Kinsey did bring up the idea that sexuality is not 100% straight and 100% gay,” which to me means there are degrees of homosexuality/heterosexuality. While some studies suggest that gay men’s brains bear similarities to those of straight females, the same studies didn’t find a similar correlation between the brains of gay women and those of straight men. Not only do these facts - if indeed they are facts - not add up to any kind of consistent picture, and are therefore of little to no use in helping someone determine whether homosexual relationships are “right” for them, but if someone is near the center of the continuum from that runs from 100% straight to 100% gay, should they be forced to choose one or other other, or should they be permitted to “marry” both a man and a woman, since that is perhaps the only way they may feel fulfilled? And what of pedophiles, or those sexually attracted to animals? Oh, but they’re not capable of making a mature decision to consent, you say. But if it’s merely consent that determines the morality of an act, then all the abovementioned “facts” matter not a wit, and we open the door to anything that someone might consent to as being moral - for example, offering someone a bag of heroin, which they may consent to consume.—
Morality cannot extend from mere facts.

Posted by Observer on Sunday, Mar 27, 2011 8:30 PM (EST):

Jaroslaw wrote:

“Hieronymous claims homosexuality will disappear eventually like Eugenics.”

This is incorrect. Hieronymus said that “the homosexual agenda… It is wrong, it is evil and it will disappear in shame and ignominy, just like the not-so-distant fad of eugenics”. He clearly does not talk about homosexuality here. I think, Jaroslaw, that sometimes you have trouble understanding English, no?

Posted by Jaroslaw on Sunday, Mar 27, 2011 10:40 AM (EST):

Steve, you don’t know what you’re talking about; ad hominem means to attack a person, and to appeal to prejudices. I don’t even know Kevin or Hieronymous. My posts are full of facts - women couldn’t vote until 1920, which means our society has changed its view of womwen’s role. At the time, many claimed giving women the right to vote would destroy the family. I assume people here can think but apparently not - my point about Fr. Coughlin was not to say “Nazi” and have all debate stop - my point was he had radio show and therefore it was widely known what his positions were, it was not secret and yet the hierarchy didn’t do anything about it. I mentioned autopsies show Gay mens brains are different. I mentioned pheromone studies and brain scans. I mentioned studies show Gay parents do just fine. Gay kids commit suicide NOT because they are Gay but becasue they are tortured by classmates and society. Conversion therapies do not work for most people. READ the papers - John Paulk was the biggest ex-Gay “success” story Exodus had and he was found in a Gay Bar last year. Right, he was just thirsty and that was the closest place to get a drink…. You guys dispute everything from every source not Catholic but most people consider these facts. Hieronymous claims homosexuality will disappear eventually like Eugenics. How is this going to happen when it exists over the millenia in almost every society on earth? You guys must not have read my post where it shows up on Greek pottery images, hieroglyphics in the pyramids etc. Good luck with that one.

Posted by Kevin Rahe on Sunday, Mar 27, 2011 8:52 AM (EST):

Jaroslaw,
You said, “the Church told them to ‘submit’ to their husbands, and to take physical abuse as ‘wifely’ duties.”
To me, “the Church” means the WHOLE Church, not one priest or bishop, or even a whole conference of bishops. I would not defend everything that every priest, bishop or even pope throughout history has said, and that includes priests I know personally. There have been some who actively tried to subvert the teachings of the Church and many others who’ve made honest mistakes in disseminating the faith. Even the earliest Church Fathers occasionally made what we would recognize today as heretical statements.—
Your arguments only buttress my own implication that it is the doctrine of the Church that is important, rather than any particular priest’s or bishop’s adherence to it. What is important for the clergy is to have a commitment to orthodoxy, rather than an unblemished record of teaching it. This also exposes the folly of the modern idea of being “spiritual but not religious.” If priests and bishops with a solid body of doctrine at their disposal cannot always get it right, how can an individual who could never hope to duplicate even a fraction of the collective thought that went into, say the Catechism of the Catholic Church, ever expect to get it right?

Posted by Steve on Saturday, Mar 26, 2011 10:28 PM (EST):

Jaroslaw,

Your arguments are nothing but ad hominum attacks on posters.

Something cogent, factual and related should be the over-arching goal for all posters.
One of my favorite blog articles stated that the first one to dredge up “Nazi” has already lost the argument.

Posted by Jaroslaw on Friday, Mar 25, 2011 1:55 PM (EST):

Kevin - arguing with you is like arguing with a child, you just keep talking, ignoring, saying anything that comes into your head. WHERE did I say abuse of women was a Church doctrine? I’m telling you what MANY women have told me their priests told them. There is a big problem in humanity - we have a hard time separating cultural from divine truth. That is where a lot of this anti-homosexual stuff comes from. So, YOU call the women liars or explain why ALL the priests in 1940 told the women to put up with domestic violence! Do they represent the Church or not? We are speaking collectively, not one rogue priest here or there. How about Father Coughlin right here in my region? Pro Nazi as all get out and even had a radio show. I did research the “women have no souls” apparently a Silesian person named Valentius somebody took advantage of a Latin word “homo” which primarily means man or woman but can secondarily mean “an adult male.” Well, isn’t it wonderful. Everything has a happy ending, if you just search hard enough. There’s always an explanation. The Church apparently has done no wrong ever, it is just a happy accident of history that women couldn’t vote in the USA until 1920 because they were happy being fourth class citizens and property until then.

Posted by Kevin Rahe on Thursday, Mar 24, 2011 10:25 AM (EST):

No Church doctrine has ever suggested that taking physical abuse is a “wifely duty,” and the Church still holds that the husband is the head of his family, as Christ is the head of His church. What this means, however, is often misunderstood. Here’s a good article on the subject: http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6387—
I’ve heard some pretty outlandish claims about what the Church has supposedly done or taught over the centuries, but that women don’t have a soul is a new one. I won’t even bother to waste my time on that one.—
You are right in that not all Church traditions are unchangeable. But there are things that can be changed, and things that cannot. For example, the Church has the authority to reverse itself on the requirement that priests be celibate. However, the sacrament of marriage is not a tradition that can be changed. Rather, it is an infallible teaching. There’s no room at all for debate on the matter.

Posted by Jaroslaw on Thursday, Mar 24, 2011 3:05 AM (EST):

Kevin - I’m sure the Catholic church is glad that you and H are not on a debating team FOR them. Anyone not 100% old time Catholic sees right through your mostly paper thin arguments. The Church surely has done its best on most things, but it HAS changed. I know women in their 90’s - the Church told them to ‘submit’ to their husbands, and to take physical abuse as ‘wifely’ duties. The Church would NEVER say that now.

See what I mean about changing the debate? I never Jesus did NOT change things on a permanent basis? You just pull this out of thin air. But our understanding of Him has changed over the centuries, mostly for the better. Did you forget in the middle ages, the Church debated on whether or not women even had a soul? PLEASE stop this idea that everything is unchangeable.

Posted by Kevin Rahe on Wednesday, Mar 23, 2011 5:21 PM (EST):

I say that Jesus Christ, whether we’re a fan of Him or not, has changed how mankind looks at things on a permanent basis, and this includes marriage. Any attempt to change, improve or destroy it will always be compared to its inescapable Christian ideal.

Posted by Jaroslaw on Wednesday, Mar 23, 2011 11:41 AM (EST):

Kevin - I just can’t debate with you anymore. You cannot expect me to take you seriously with comments like “I would say marriage is what it always was.” I don’t know how you could say that unless you haven’t read what I wrote above or you dispute it all, which you haven’t done so far.

Posted by Kevin Rahe on Wednesday, Mar 23, 2011 9:27 AM (EST):

I would say that marriage is what it always was, but that Western civilization WANTS it to be something else. You cannot really change marriage, however, any more than you can change boys into girls - all you can do is destroy it or build it up. That Western thought has had more of a destructive than supportive effect on marriage over the past few decades is quite obvious, and I don’t see same-sex “marriage” magically reversing the trend.—
As far as outlawing other churches, the Catholic Church needs no such coercion. She is strong enough on her own to withstand attacks from without as well as within, and can even grow in the midst of turmoil such as we see today. This in contrast to institutions like same-sex “marriage,” which are so fragile that they need to practically outlaw Christianity in order to merely survive.

Posted by Jaroslaw on Tuesday, Mar 22, 2011 10:30 PM (EST):

Hieronymous - YOU were the one who stated you weren’t going to respond anymore to me. Either logical people see that you keep changing the parameters of the debate or they don’t. Saying that I’m going to debunk nonsense is not a personal attack. Saying you don’t know what you don’t know is the truth, based on what I see here. Unless everything I’ve read over many years from multiple sources is a lie. But if so, how can you prove everything you read is true? Perhaps saying ‘you’re out of your mind” is a bit strong, but you are so absurdly wrong, it is hard to know what to say! I’m assuredly attacking what you say, but there is nothing personal about it! I admit to commenting too quickly on the foster child bit in England - but I do think there is more to the story and stated that upfront. Having worked for the government for many years, I would think a foster family would be required to be neutral on religious matters. Why is this unreasonable? The children may be been born Muslim, or Hindu or anything else. They may be adopted ultimately by people who are not Christian.
KEVIN - I am happy the Catholic Church has the answers for YOU and H. Mostly for me as well. Chesterton’s quote is probably true for a great great many, but remember the Catholic Church itself accepts rays of truth wherever they are found. So unless you plan on outlawing non-Catholic religions, your statement is unworkable in any practical sense except for willing adherents. My comment about the whole world - YOU guys are the ones claiming what traditional marriage is and was and it is definitely NOT as western civilization defines it today.

Posted by Kevin Rahe on Monday, Mar 21, 2011 4:38 PM (EST):

@Hieronymus,

I wish I had thought of it earlier, but there is an obvious response to Jaroslaw’s comment, “But if you close your mind and ONLY read Catholic stuff, you are wasting MY time too. There is a whole world out there, of which you are apparently unaware.”

The answer of course is that once one has found a satisfactory answer to a question, it is at the very least a waste of time to search for others. And the answers provided by the Catholic Church are usually much more than satisfactory - they’re excellent! As G.K. Chesterton said, “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.”

Posted by Hieronymus on Saturday, Mar 19, 2011 6:19 PM (EST):

@Jaroslaw,

“Glad to see you’re letting me have the last word.”

Even though having the last word proves absolutely nothing and is of importance only to the superficial and immature debaters, I have no intention of letting you get off so easily.

“I don’t see anyplace I’ve been deliberately mean to you.”

OK, let’s see: “Gee whiz, there is so much nonsense to debunk with you two”, “Hieronymous, how odd that you choose a Greek name; one would assume that you read history. Apparently not,”, “I can’t believe you’re so smug you think you know everything. You don’t even know what you don’t know.” These are your own words from your previous posting and if they are not personal attacks, I don’t know what is. I don’t complain - after all, it takes much more to hurt me than such half-witted innuendo - but I want to prove the mendacity of your statement.

“You did not prove anything when you posted that link about the UK couple being refused Foster children.”

I proved that such a fact had occurred - something that you were hotly denying, here’s your quote: “Kevin - you’re making a bunch of generalizations, most of which are easily disproved… Please cite the exact example where UK couples are being denied as foster parents due to their Christian Faith.” I did just that.

“Gay kids kill themselves three times more than other kids.” Perhaps because they are frightened and confused but they receive no real help, just the unthinking encouragement of their distorted sexual urges from the “GL-something-something community”? Perhaps because homosexuality IS a mental illness? But, of course, this is anathema to homosexual enforcers like you.

“I read something about the pedophile priests - a child molester is not Gay or straight, he is a criminal.” A primitive attempt at changing the subject so I won’t bother to debunk it.

“I like how you completely ignore that the Church covered it up and transferred these monsters for decades too, in your response to me.”
Another primitive attempt of the same kind. Obviously, I did not write an article about the priestly sexual abuse of children, I only mentioned it. But it is very telling that you don’t want to question the basically homosexual character of this crime. By the way, a good summary of the ubiquity of covering up the child sexual abuse has been just posted at http://blog.archny.org/?p=1127 .

“I did respond to Prop 8 - I don’t think human rights should be voted on.” And that’s exactly what I meant by writing about the anti-democratic character of the homosexual agenda. Thank you for confirming it. By the way, marriage is not a human right but I won’t go now into this very large topic.

“You are out of your mind if you think homosexuality is only occasional in history.” Ah, another “not mean” comment. If only 2-3% of humanity is homosexual, what do you call it? I agree, though, that “marginal” is probably a better term than “occasional”.

“But if you close your mind and ONLY read Catholic stuff, you are wasting MY time too. There is a whole world out there, of which you are apparently unaware.” Yet another remark that is clearly “not mean” and comes from your exact knowledge of what I read.

Now a couple of quotes from your responses to other posters:

“I proved that traditional marriage has very different definitions in different times and places.” You proved nothing of the kind. You have only mentioned some of the ever-changing DETAILS in the outward form of marriage in different epochs but you did not (because you couldn’t) prove that marriage has not always been understood as a union of a man and a woman (polygamy and polyandry being only the qualitative, not quantitative, exceptions.) It is like saying that cars in the 1920s were completely different from the cars in our times because they had running boards.

“Didn’t the Catholic church put Galileo on trial because he taught the earth was round and not flat in centuries past?”

Oh boy, you do have a penchant for bringing up the tired old canards. This distorted version of the reasons for the trial of Galileo has been flogged to death and beyond by the crude anti-Church propaganda. If you are really interested in the truth about it, you may read http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0005.html . See, unlike yourself I am not stingy on providing links and giving you the benefit of the doubt about your intellectual capacities. On the other hand, you may reject this source outright because it is Catholic - this is called “killing the messenger”.

Well, I am finally done here. Go ahead and write something to have the last word if it makes you happy. I have not read in your postings anything that I hadn’t seen before, and all this stuff doesn’t make me doubt any of the self-evident certainties that stand very firmly against the homosexual agenda. It is wrong, it is evil and it will disappear in shame and ignominy, just like the not-so-distant fad of eugenics (also ardently supported by intellectuals and governments.)

Posted by Kevin Rahe on Saturday, Mar 19, 2011 3:24 PM (EST):

@Jaroslaw, the key difference between the Catholic Church and the rest of the world is that she holds the position that one can know that an act is bad (e.g. extramarital sex) without having to empirically prove it so by actually doing it.

Posted by Jaroslaw on Saturday, Mar 19, 2011 12:37 AM (EST):

Luis Puig - I admire your faith, that it is so simple for you. Didn’t the Catholic church put Galileo on trial because he taught the earth was round and not flat in centuries past? So the Church CAN and DOES change!

One last thing and I’m done here. I’m in favor of loving committed relationships. Not promiscuity, drug use, orgies or anything that most people associate with homosexuality. Just so you know, I never found a life partner so I’ve chosen to be celibate.

Posted by Luis M. Puig on Friday, Mar 18, 2011 10:49 PM (EST):

It is absolutely clear that, according to teaching of the Catholic Church, marriage between two people of the same sex goes “against natural law;” therefore, nobody can claim to be a catholic and at the same time, support marriage among homosexuals. Politicians who call themselves catholic and promote and/or support marriage among homosexuals, should be excommunicated, period. You are either with God, or against God!

Posted by Jaroslaw on Friday, Mar 18, 2011 7:41 PM (EST):

Kevin you’re changing almost the whole debate here. You and H are the ones who say we need “traditional” marriage. I proved that traditional marriage has very different definitions in different times and places. It has changed radically in our own USA. Did you forget women were property? Therefore, during a divorce, the man got the children because they too were HIS property.

BTW, I typed a huge response and somehow it got lost while I was researching a response to H and so what you are reading now will be considerably shorter. I don’t CARE if public opinions came around later on minorities and women. The subject we were discussing is that people at the TIME didn’t think women or minorities were really people. That is why basic human issues can never be put up for a vote.

Surprise - I agree with you that abortion is murder and should be illegal. I’ve read a lot about the court cases in Roe V Wade and that is totally another discussion and we have insufficient space here. Let’s just say that same sex marriage does not involve murdering an innocent child, it is the choice of two adults who they should marry. Even if you think religion should rule the laws here, which religion? Some allow for divorce and some don’t. Etc. etc. What if Muslims become the majority, will you feel the same way?

I also agree with you that too many people take marriage and divorce too lightly. Here’s another thought for another time: You’re all excited about not letting Gays get married: How many (straight) people these days don’t even bother to get married at all? Or bother going to Church?

Funny how you say the quality of the parents is more important than the quantity. There is a Gay male couple in Florida, and there are many like them in the USA. They take kids from social services that nobody else wants, disabled, mentally ill, Down’s syndrome etc. The neighbors say they are excellent parents. Would you prefer these kids remain in an institution? I have worked for 25 years for social services, not in that department though, and I can tell you MOUNTAINS of my clients should never have become parents, but hey, they can combine sperm & egg so they have the right!

I would also suggest that even if man/woman make the best parents, we’ve never really had that. There have always been wars, divorces (lots of those), men who run off, death and all kinds of things why kids don’t have a mom/dad. Nowadays, and for a very long time both parents work. So the kids are in daycare. THAT is a travesty in my opinion. Whether out of economic necessity or for the desire of more material things better house neighborhood etc. What a shame.

One last thought - working against same sex marriage is in a ways “just mean.” Just because YOU are unaware that Gay couples don’t exist because we hide it, is no reason to prohibit it based on your religious views. I pay taxes and vote too you know. Should I get to vote on how many kids you have?

Hieronymous - Glad to see you’re letting me have the last word. Sorry if you feel disagreeing with you or pointing out the truth is a personal attack. I don’t see anyplace I’ve been deliberately mean to you. You’ve ignored 3/4 of what I’ve said but okay, I’ll play along. You did not prove anything when you posted that link about the UK couple being refused Foster children. Being accepting of homosexuality for FOSTER parents is a whole different thing than telling people what to do with their own children. Did you know for instance WHY these laws get put into place to begin with? Because Gay kids kill themselves three times more than other kids. Hate crimes and Bullying are way more often against Gay kids or those perceived to be Gay. (Think about it PERCEIVED is a big deal here sometimes too)

I read something about the pedophile priests - a child molester is not Gay or straight, he is a criminal. I like how you completely ignore that the Church covered it up and transferred these monsters for decades too, in your response to me. That makes me sad by the way, because I had excellent Priests except for one growing up and the nuns were amazing teachers at college. Sad to see they’ve been tarred by the same brush, something completely beyond their control by the hierarchy. See, I’m not anti-Catholic after all! But what I’ve read conflicts completely with what you’re saying, Gays are being scapegoated here. I don’t want to leave this post to give you a link which you won’t read anyway and have to retype this again.

I did respond to Prop 8 - I don’t think human rights should be voted on. Did you forget it was illegal until 1964 for people of different races to marry in half our states?

You are out of your mind if you think homosexuality is only occasional in history. Again read some books. Look at homosexuality depicted on ancient pottery in Greece and elsewhere, on the hierglyphics in EGypt. Sergio and Bacchus? Even an Indian religion has a Gay saint (as in India). But if you close your mind and ONLY read Catholic stuff, you are wasting MY time too. There is a whole world out there, of which you are apparently unaware.

Posted by Hieronymus on Friday, Mar 18, 2011 5:09 PM (EST):

@Jaroslaw,

The fact that you are starting to resort to personal attacks and that you don’t respond any more to many issues which you yourself have previously raised (for example, your denial of the refusal of adoption in the UK which has been shown to you to be true) shows that you are losing this debate. The same applies to your mentioning the “pedophile” priests (who, as we all know, are in over 80% not pedophiles but homosexuals - George Weigel states this very clearly in his recent book about John Paul II) and your lack of comment with regard to Prop 8. Since your ill will is clear, I will not waste my time on answering your current “arguments”. I shall only point out that, in your ignorance of what the concept of marriage truly entails, you confuse a few historical instances of socially accepted homosexual unions with the legal form of marriage which, so far, has NEVER been any other than between a man and a woman. Therefore, please, spare us the worn-out canards of homosexual propaganda and stop embarrassing yourself.

Posted by Kevin Rahe on Friday, Mar 18, 2011 5:07 PM (EST):

@Jaroslaw,
“To simplify for you, marriage was NOTHING like what we conceive of it today.”—
So what changed? Could the way society views marriage today have had something to do with the influence of… Christianity?——
“Most people were against the right of women voting at the time. Ditto for slavery and civil rights for Blacks. The courts stepped in and changed this based on sound Constitutional principles.”—
Yes they did, and we know that those decisions were right because within a few years public opinion fell in line with them and/or actual legislation affirming the decisions was passed. However, this cannot be said of all court decisions, for example Roe v. Wade, which enjoys probably less support today than at any time since it became the “law of the land” as pro-choicers are so fond of saying. I predict that if the courts impose same-sex “marriage” on the nation using reasoning as specious as that in Roe v. Wade, it will experience the same rough waters that that decision enjoys.——
“You’re not comfortable with a lie? Why would you dispute all the findings of numerous universities, many different psychiatric and psychological associations that children raised by Gays come out okay? They are all lying?”—
The lies I speak of are of the type, “I have two fathers and no mother,” “I have two mothers and no father,” “My father is not a man,” or “My mother is not a woman.” One or more of these apply to every child jointly adopted by same-sex “parents.” Perhaps they even use different ones on different days, or depending on the company.——
“If you really believe what you’re saying, work to ban divorces and single parenthood. Take children away from single mothers if you think two parents are such a necessity.”—
Divorce is too easy to obtain in most places. Unbelievably, some people actually get married with the idea that they might possibly get divorced at some point. Single parenthood is not an optimal situation, but banning it exceeds the bounds of reason and practicality. Besides, it’s not the quantity of parents that is important in a 2-parent family, but what the father and mother are uniquely able to offer their children. If mere quantity were the desirable characteristic when it comes to parents, we would be remiss in continuing to limit marital unions to two people.

Posted by Jaroslaw on Friday, Mar 18, 2011 3:03 PM (EST):

Gee whiz, there is so much nonsense to debunk with you two, Kevin and Hieronymous I hardly know where to start. First of all, I’ve got no problem with you disagreeing, but there is no point to discuss stuff if you’re going to totally ignore or (unreasonably) dispute everything I say.

Hieronymous, how odd that you choose a Greek name; one would assume that you read history. Apparently not, because you would know that although marriage more often than not has been between a man and a woman, (but NOT ALWAYS) it also included adult males instructing younger males in many things, including sexual relations, especially in Greece. But more to the point, marriage was MOSTLY so that the male could know who his heirs were, pass on a name and inheritance. Every kind of sexual activity could and did occur (LEGALLY) between him and anyone he chose to have sex with, especially for those of higher social or economic standing. The wife had little or no say in any of this. To simplify for you, marriage was NOTHING like what we conceive of it today.

Wait 50 years for Massachussetts? I don’t have to. I can’t believe you’re so smug you think you know everything. You don’t even know what you don’t know. Are you aware that there are Gay couples who have been together for decades? Without any of the social props of Church Weddings, legal and tax recognition, social support of anniversaries, mother’s day and father’s day? Etc. And with all this 50% of marriages can’t stay together. Yes, I know the stat ignores all the people who stay married (see, unlike you I can deal with the truth) but it is still a HUGE number of couples divorcing. Add to this the fact that less than 50 years ago, homosexuals could have their names reported in the paper, they could and still can in most places get fired, refused apartments etc. etc. This would explain why there aren’t MORE stable couples, but in light of this, it is a miracle there are any.

H - voting on people’s basic rights? Again, read history. Most people were against the right of women voting at the time. Ditto for slavery and civil rights for Blacks. The courts stepped in and changed this based on sound Constitutional principles. Oddly a lot of judges who did this were appointed by Reagan and Bush! Of course, the religious right only disapproves of judicial activism when it against what they want. When it is what they want, activism is fine. Hypocrites! By the way, H, with the Church’s very dishonest, decades dodging of the pedophile priest issue, a lot of people would probably vote to outlaw the Catholic Church IF it was put up for a vote. Would you respect democracy then? (for the record, I wouldn’t just as I don’t respect voting on basic rights)

Kevin - I clicked on the link about freedom of speech in Canada, there are a lot of conflicting things there. No, absolutely not, should a priest be put up on charges for promoting the Church’s teaching. I believe in freedom of religion. But again, is there more to the story? You know, the baker and photographer story is a perfect example of what I mean by “more to the story.” IF you are going to offer your services to the public, you cannot decide who you are going to serve. Some people claim God put the races on different continents for a reason. Some even teach this as part of their religion. So should they get to refuse to wait on a person of a different race?

You’re not comfortable with a lie? Why would you dispute all the findings of numerous universities, many different psychiatric and psychological associations that children raised by Gays come out okay? They are all lying? My guess is you were fine with their determinations prior to 1973 that said being Gay was a mental illness, but now that the truth is out, you call it a lie? The Church says Gays are MORALLY disordered not Mentally Ill! I just found out a new friend of mine (female) her husband was raised by two partnered Gay guys. They are wonderful parents and he is a great guy.

If, (and I stress IF) anyone is being misleading, it is you twou don’t know history and your examples are false. If you really believe what you’re saying, work to ban divorces and single parenthood. Take children away from single mothers if you think two parents are such a necessity. LIVE your truth.

LROY - if you’re addressing the one man/one woman to me, that is YOUR choice not mine! Isn’t FREEDOM great? You can believe what you want, same for me and I can’t force it on you and you can’t force your beliefs on me!

Posted by LRoy on Friday, Mar 18, 2011 2:03 PM (EST):

In Massachusetts, same-sex policy won’t change as long as citizens vote for “Catholic” representatives like Tsongas.
Anyway, what part of ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN (for life) do you not understand?

Posted by Hieronymus on Friday, Mar 18, 2011 1:50 AM (EST):

Incidentally, this excellent post about the infiltration of Catholic institutions by a pro-homosexual billionaire just came up on the net:

@Jaroslaw, when I say that marriage is “demanded,” I mean that when I decided to propose an intimate relationship with my wife, and she accepted, I (and she) felt obligated to make the public commitment of marriage before beginning the intimate part of that relationship. The expectation that this is the way things should be is found not only in my own faith, but also among those who practice other faiths or no faith at all. It is also, of course, tradition, and as with many traditions there are practical as well as spiritual reasons behind it.—
For the most part you don’t outright deny my claims about same-sex “marriage” being coercive to those who would prefer not to get involved in the activity or the debate, but here are references to back them up anyway. It really is a tyranny.
In Canada free speech has been curtailed: http://catholicexchange.com/2008/06/04/112780/
In the UK couples are being denied as foster parents because their Christian faith is “inimical to children”: http://the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com/2011/02/high-court-judgement-christian-belief.html
Organizations have ceased offering adoption services where same-sex “marriage” or civil unions would require them to place children with same-sex couples: http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/catholic_charities_stuns_state_ends_adoptions/—
“Be real, Kevin; many Gays are highly educated and good parents and every straight couple does not make good parents. Are you unaware there are 100’s of thousands of unwed births a year? 50,000 in my state alone? Is an unplanned pregnancy better than a Gay couple who must jump through a bunch of requirements to be adoptive parents?”—
In other words, it is not by the ideal of traditional marriage that same-sex “marriage” is justified, but by the failure of traditional marriage to live up to that ideal.—
“You’re entitled to your opinion, but the facts show the kids come out just fine.”—
I don’t consider accepting and becoming comfortable with a lie to be “fine.” I shudder to think of the other lies they may buy into throughout the rest of their lives.

Posted by Hieronymus on Thursday, Mar 17, 2011 8:42 PM (EST):

By the way, it is not only the steadily growing number of instances in which homosexuality trumps Christianity (many of which are being archived at http://www.lifesitenews.com )but also the anti-democratic impetus of the homosexual agenda. The best example is California’s Prop 8, a referendum - and what can be more democratic than a referendum? - which had been overturned by activist judges and misguided politicos, submitted to public vote again with the identical result and now again on its way to be overturned. Homosexual activists respect nothing, democratic procedure least of all. They know only too well that they can force their “tolerance” only through activist judges and pliable functionaries - not a single pro-homosexual measure has been achieved anywhere in the world through public vote, they all had to be arbitrarily imposed by governments. If this is not stopped (and there are more and more voices, recently including several bishops, that warn against this undermining of democracy and the tyranny of special interests), we will be faced with homosexual totalitarianism.
PS. The rejection of a Christian foster couple in the UK is very well documented on the net, here’s just one link: http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=40535 .

Posted by steve on Thursday, Mar 17, 2011 6:52 PM (EST):

@Jaroslaw,

I would echo the comments of Hieronymus, who quoted your earlier statement,
“it is unreasonable to expect Catholic politicians to ignore their other constituents. Well, let them tow the Church’s line and see if they get re-elected.”
IT is the absolute moral threshold of life, for each of us to stand on Truth and it’s principles. All of the horrific “-isms”, which have beleagured the world have arisen from that type of statement.
Our goal must be to live a good, holy and thereby honest life…THROUGH WHICH we call those around us to the same standard.
POWER, MONEY, POSITION and the like should never be reason for anything because it corrupts us all too easily.

Posted by Hieronymus on Thursday, Mar 17, 2011 6:44 PM (EST):

@Jaroslaw,

That depends on what do you mean by “represent”. If your constituent just asks you for help in, say, dealing with some governmental department, it doesn’t matter, of course, whether he is a Catholic or not, you just go and help him. That’s what is your duty. On the other hand, if you take your Catholicism seriously, you cannot help a constituent who asks you to petition for the introduction of homosexual “marriage” because this goes (or certainly should go) against your informed conscience. This does not violate your official oath because you have been elected as a Catholic and nobody can force you to act against your beliefs. “Catholic” means being a member of the Roman Catholic Church whose Magisterium is clearly summed up in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and the said Catechism describes homosexuality as “intrinsically disordered”. If you don’t agree with this, you cannot call yourself a Catholic.

Posted by Jaroslaw on Thursday, Mar 17, 2011 5:24 PM (EST):

Kevin - you’re making a bunch of generalizations, most of which are easily disproved. (first though I’ll say that I have no idea what you are trying to say in the parentheses). Please cite the exact example where UK couples are being denied as foster parents due to their Christian Faith. I have many books where the religious right in the USA make such claims, and they cite the name, city and place - and there is always more to the story. Example: A public school teacher in NY is supposedly fired for her “faith?” What really happened? She wouldn’t quit trying to indoctrinate children into her snake handling/ ultra fundamental religion ON SCHOOL TIME when she is supposed to be teaching. If your Catholic child was in her class you would be incensed. To say nothing of non-Christian parents opinions!

What free speech is curtailed in Canada? The only thing I can think of us is people can’t use the Bible and “freedom of religion” to encourage bashing of homosexuals. This is very different than calling homosexuality a sin.

Organizations can still perform adoptions, what they cannot do is get taxpayer money to discriminate. It was their choice to stop the process. Be real, Kevin; many Gays are highly educated and good parents and every straight couple does not make good parents. Are you unaware there are 100’s of thousands of unwed births a year? 50,000 in my state alone? Is an unplanned pregnancy better than a Gay couple who must jump through a bunch of requirements to be adoptive parents? You’re entitled to your opinion, but the facts show the kids come out just fine. Actually Lesbians are the best parents of all. The boys will fight, but only as a last resort, being encouraged to try to talk things out first!

Hieronymus - The politician agrees to represent ALL his constituents, that is part of his oath of office. He CANNOT represent only his Catholic ones. If he chooses to tow the line per the Magesterium, then I doubt if he would get elected outside of a mainly Catholic district. His choice, but I already said this.

Posted by Hieronymus on Thursday, Mar 17, 2011 4:53 PM (EST):

@Jaroslaw,

“The sky has not fallen” is one of the silliest things one can say in reference to social processes without giving them long enough - and that’s what they need - to see their real impact. Check on Massachussets in 50 or so years, and then talk. As for “Catholic” politicians, you still don’t seem to understand that we are talking here about religion, not just about an accident of birth and a loose set of moral convictions which one can remember or forget at a whim. Contrary to your opinion - which is wrong - same-sex “marriage” is very important because it flies in the face of the natural law and the traditional social order. It is probably THE most subversive thing that has ever happened to humanity. As a Catholic, I can’t make you to reject it but I MUST reject it myself. Incidentally, I do not reject it because I am a Catholic - I am a Catholic because I reject such dangerous and absurd concepts. And I will most definitely cease to be a Catholic on the very day (may it never come) when the Church accepts the homosexual “marriage” because this will mean its total apostasy.

Posted by Kevin Rahe on Thursday, Mar 17, 2011 3:58 PM (EST):

@Jaroslaw, like so many others, you want to make everyone think that SSM will have no impact on them. Yet, in other countries and states where it has been “allowed” (I always thought married was demanded, not merely permitted), it has proven to be quite coercive. In the UK couples are being denied as foster parents because their Christian faith is “inimical to children,” while in Canada free speech has been curtailed and in some U.S. states organizations that facilitated adoptions have been left with no choice but to halt those services.

Posted by Hieronymus on Thursday, Mar 17, 2011 1:45 PM (EST):

@Jaroslaw,

Oh, I almost forgot - you wrote:

“it is unreasonable to expect Catholic politicians to ignore their other constituents. Well, let them tow the Church’s line and see if they get re-elected.”

If they are honest individuals, they shouldn’t care about getting re-elected but about not falling into obvious hypocrisy. What is really unreasonable is to state that, since Catholic politicians should represent all of their constituents, they must act contrary to the Magisterium. When they do that, they obviously do not represent their Catholic constituents, do they?
Truly Catholic voters (as opposed to the cafeteria “Catholics” and other confused pseudo-Catholics) must awake to this sham and stop voting for such blatant impostors.

Posted by Jaroslaw on Thursday, Mar 17, 2011 1:10 PM (EST):

Steve - I will not try to change your mind, but there are some things which are beyond dispute. Kinsey did bring up the idea that sexuality is not 100% straight and 100% gay. This should be obvious with all the people who are on the downlow; etc. The movie about his life indicates the public was starved for accurate information about sex, reproduction and birth control. HIs classes at University of Indiana were overflowing. The fact that he did some morally questionable things and some definitely wrong things does not necessarily invalidate all his work. Same applies to you - just because you have some moral failings doesn’t invalidate your entire life.

Another example - for decades, homosexuals were considered to be mentally ill. That is because only gay guys with money went to the psychiatrist. How educated people could deduce based on this that ALL gays are mentally ill is absurd. Not only that, getting beaten up and hiding all the time is a terrible mental burden. (That is where Mass obligation came from - UK people kept switching religions, protestant when Elizabeth I was on the throne, Catholic when ‘Bloody’ Mary was on).

Hieronymus - I don’t know if Catholic Politicians should stop calling themselves Catholic. If so, then they might as well not run for office because no one in politics gets 100% of what they want. Better they are there and try to have SOME impact on things which are important. SSM isn’t one of them. The problem is who I want to marry is NONE of your business anymore than I can tell you how many kids to have. Anyone who wants to be 1000% Catholic has every right to do so. They do not have the right to try to tell anyone else what to do. We are not talking about molesting children, murder, rape or stealing. We are talking about the rights of otherwise law abiding, responsible adults. The Sky has not fallen in Spain, Massachussets or anywhere else we have SSM. Think about it.

Posted by Hieronymus on Thursday, Mar 17, 2011 1:21 AM (EST):

@AL,

Instead of explaining the very obvious fact that Matt.7:4 refers only to hypocrisy and that it is referred to “ad nauseam” in order to irrationally reject any critique whatsoever, I’ll just ask you - how can you possibly know that I have a plank in my eye?

@Jaroslav,

I know only one thing, namely, that “Catholic” politicians who do not support Catholic values in public should stop calling themselves Catholic. Logical, isn’t it?

Posted by Steve on Wednesday, Mar 16, 2011 10:51 PM (EST):

Al,

I am sorry that Kinsey decided to falsify (and fancify?) his research, data and conclusions and so mislead the world. His data manipulation is egregious and NO research conclusion based in part or in whole on his work can ever be viewed with any credibility again. (Except in the vein of “once upon a time….”). The Climate controversy of recent disdain examples the cherry picking of data/information to fit a hoped for conclusion.
When these types of falsifications are portrayed as factual, then everyone loses. You can throw around names, labels and conclusions which attempt to present a false front, but it will never rise to the truth of natural law or the fullness of all Truth, Jesus Christ.

The homosexual community clamours for validation, even if it is knowledgeably false. The only validation for any of us is Christ, upon whom we can only hope in His mercy. May He have mercy on us all.

Posted by AL on Wednesday, Mar 16, 2011 8:43 PM (EST):

Steve, Hieronymus,

What you may be discounting in your reasoning is perhaps the philosophy of utilitarianism in regards to John Stuart Mill. In many ways, the Catholic Church’s values and beliefs can be seen as types of rule utilitarianism in order to assist individuals to achieve self-actualization or happiness as defined by Aristotle in the “Nicomachean Ethics”. And of course, self-actualization as defined by Psychologist Abraham Maslow is relative to each particular individual person. Therefore, whether or not homosexual behaviour is wrong or not depends on whether or not it goes past the point of diminishing marginal utility.
As a side note, in reference to your comments about Freud and Kinsey, Matthew 7:4 “How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?”

Posted by RJA on Wednesday, Mar 16, 2011 6:36 PM (EST):

Holy matrimony allows for certain civil protections afforded by the law. If there was an alternative to matrimony that afforded these rights then there would be no issue. Civil unions as they stand today do not allow for the same protections and benefits as civil marriage does.

Posted by Jaroslaw on Wednesday, Mar 16, 2011 6:32 PM (EST):

Hieronymus:

I respectfully submit you have your head in the sand. Decades ago, people kept their mentally ill relatives and children in the attic. Later we kept them in institutions. Later when that became too expensive or whatever, they became mainstreamed. Was there an increase in mental illness or did the general public simply become AWARE? Mostly it is the latter.

There is so much evidence that homosexual attraction cannot be controlled - there are all kinds of studies out there - including one where Gay men’s brains are even different! Even if you dispute this, which I’m sure you will without even reading it, we live in a SECULAR Democracy, which means you are free to practice your religion and others are free to practice theirs (or none at all) should they so choose. It is not the government’s job to enforce only SOME religious preferences. If you do not believe this, start working to prohibit divorce for ANY reason (save adultery as Jesus said) and SEE how FAR you (DON’T) GET!

The Church of course, can have their say in the realm of public discourse like any other person or entity; but I think it is unreasonable to expect Catholic politicians to ignore their other constituents. Well, let them tow the Church’s line and see if they get re-elected.

Posted by Hieronymus on Wednesday, Mar 16, 2011 4:53 PM (EST):

Kinsey was a very, very sick man, Freud was a militant atheist and he had a one-track mind (as the saying goes, for him even the penis was a phallic symbol…) Both of them bear heavy responsibility for the galloping decay of our culture.

Posted by steve on Wednesday, Mar 16, 2011 1:22 PM (EST):

AL,
YOU CAN NOT QUOTE KINSEY AND FREUD…. THEY INVENTED/CREATED/FALSIFIED ALL OF THEIR DATA!!

It is what we call in the real world….Intellectual FRAUD!!

Posted by Kevin Rahe on Wednesday, Mar 16, 2011 10:35 AM (EST):

AL, unless you’re arguing that there is no such thing as disordered attractions, I think the Catholic Church is already in line with your position. It does not judge a person based on whether or not they have disordered attractions or orientations. In fact, it doesn’t judge persons at all - only the acts they commit. A person with undesired attractions to others of the same sex, children, animals, etc. who does not fantasize or act on those attractions and tries to avoid situations where they might be tempted to act on them does not sin. On the other hand, someone who identifies as a heterosexual but chooses to engage in a homosexual act does sin.

Posted by AL on Tuesday, Mar 15, 2011 10:26 PM (EST):

It may well be time for the Catholic Church to revise its stance on Homosexuality. The Church’s stance against homosexuality is based on the pressumption that human beings are exclusively divided into heterosexual and homosexual. However, the fact of the matter is that there is no exclusive demarcation line between heterosexuality or homosexuality. As such, the evidence is clearly undeniable: Sigmund Freud’s theory of innate bisexuality and Dr. Alfred Kinsey’s “Kinsey Scale”. Introducing the scale, Kinsey stated that: “Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories… The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects.” Therefore, the basis upon which the Church makes its stance is fallible. Henceforth, any argument made by the Church upon its fallible basis can also be rendered fallible as well. Once again, it may well be time for the Church and for Catholics world-wide to reconsider and re-evaluate their stance on sexuality.

Posted by steve on Tuesday, Mar 15, 2011 7:45 PM (EST):

Well, for those who believe that the Church should stay out of privacy issues, I would state that the Church appears to be the ONLY representative of moral and objective truth, which also descends from and is coupled with Natural Law. The Church has always been against slavery and totalitarian regeimes and their excesses, but sought peaceful and rational change. When the rule of self-aggrandizing groups and their desires wish to exceed the Moral Truth and Natural Law is when societies get out of hand. It is the rise of self seeking desire at the expense of all else. ( Mark, Our form of government is a representative republic, not a true democracy, this is by the consent of the governed.)

Using your desires and rationales, how long will it be before “people” will desire the legal polygamy of groups or collections of any stripe and combination or even the “right” to “marry” animals or pets or rocks or whatever idiocy or lunacy, which can arise. It is paganism.

The natural Law for marriage was between 1 man and 1 woman. The Church has taken this a step further to understand that the fullest and holiest unity of love and sacrifice within marriage is named 9 months later.

Posted by Dr. Mark on Tuesday, Mar 15, 2011 5:00 PM (EST):

Excommunicate the politicians. Wethesheeple wrote “What you are missing is that a legislator is elected to REPRESENT THE PEOPLE of their district, not be a dictator. If the majority of the people in their district favor marriage equality, then that is how the legislator should vote, regardless of their own personal beliefs.” So..it is majority rule without a legislator’s moral compass? Hmmm, I wonder how most southerners would have voted on slavery? Or Nazis on their support of genocide? But then wars were fought to surmount those evils, maybe another righteous war is needed.

Posted by Patg on Tuesday, Mar 15, 2011 3:27 PM (EST):

This is one Catholic who does not support “gay marriage.”
I am alarmed at the number of Catholics who forsake their Catholic beliefs for secular political correctness. One can’t espouse secular beliefs and still be a Catholic.

Posted by Dante on Tuesday, Mar 15, 2011 2:36 PM (EST):

Now, more than ever, only the faithful following of the teachings and leadership of Chair of Peter will save us from the organized efforts to anihilate Western Christendom.

Posted by Mary M. on Tuesday, Mar 15, 2011 1:02 PM (EST):

A priest who starts a group to openly lobby against a church teaching should no longer be a priest—we can’t discipline politicians if a priest is openly working against the Church with no correction. Fr. Palacios should join Fr. Cutie in the Episcopal Church.

Posted by Guerline on Tuesday, Mar 15, 2011 12:55 PM (EST):

In response to express the truth more clearly, directly and convincing which does not violate civil right and equal protection. These are guidelines that are systematically and according to reason.
The definition of marriage is define in the catechism number 1601-1654 . It provides precepts that explains the institution and nature of matrimony, the characteristics of matrimony, the graces conferred in marriage, impediments to matrimony, the celebration of matrimony, the duties of the married, mixed marriages- which to be understood marriages of Catholics with noncatholics and lastly the unmatched state.
Saint Thomas aquinas defines marriage in three articles , referred to summa theology question 44
Exposition of bible - scriptural proofs of marriage a divine ordinance Genesis 2:18-23, 3:20, 5:2, 9:1,9:7, 1COrintians 11:11-12 , please read commentary on these following scriptural passages ( saint Jerome biblical commentary )
The following encyclicals should be read : Pope pius ix (1864) on marriage, Pope Leo xIII (1880)’‘Arcanum’ and Pope Pius xi ( 1930) ‘casti connubi’
Lastly the fourth commandment catechism number 2196-2246
This is systematically !!!!!! The truth is clearly explain there is no reason to try to convince an individual by our paraphrasing what is clearly and faithfully has been given to us . Refer the individual in error in reference to the institution of marriage to these following guidelines
Thanks , be in peace

Posted by Kevin Rahe on Tuesday, Mar 15, 2011 11:57 AM (EST):

While the position of religion in this debate is certainly valid, I think what is often missing from both sides is an attempt to recognize and promote the anthropological motivation for the institution of marriage. Society demands that a man and a woman make a public commitment to each other before beginning an intimate relationship. The reason for this probably has something to do with the facts that such relationships tend to result in the birth of children, children are best raised by both parents, the time to educate a child enough that he can be turned loose in the world is significant, and the inherent incompatibility of men and women suggests that absent some such public commitment, few of them could be expected to stay together long enough to complete the task. We call this commitment marriage. Not only does the motivation behind marriage make no sense at all where same-sex unions are considered, I have yet to witness any attempt to illustrate a commensurate or even reasonable motivation for society to expect that two people of the same sex should make a similar commitment.

They have things all backwards it seems to me. The “lawmakers”, yielding to the authority of the One True God should be “affirming” marriage, not “rejecting” an abomination of marriage.

Posted by Hieronymus on Tuesday, Mar 15, 2011 9:34 AM (EST):

If these politicians act against the Magisterium, they have no right to call themselves Catholics. It is as simple as that. One cannot serve two masters. What is so difficult to understand here?

Posted by Steve on Tuesday, Mar 15, 2011 9:12 AM (EST):

The article laments the fact of the ultimate “failure” of Catholic Education coupled with the expectation that “once properly formed and catechized-any Catholic should be able to continue to form their conscience and maintain their ship aright through the stormy and polluted seas of life”. I also was educated in Catholic Education in (the PRC of) Maryland, and consider that Education to have been to foundation and cornerstone of my life.
My guess is that the rampant and incessant tide of political correctness has wormed its way into our souls and we have lost all sense of reason (and science for that matter). We are now awash with moral corruptness so that up is now down and in is now out and this has led us to turn our backs on the church, science, and just plain common sense. We are now the “non servium” “people of gods”.

For those who take the trouble, the ongoing catachesis should be simple and clear, however in our pulpits we never get the homeletics to “exhort us to clearly see and understand these issues and “judge rightly”. What has happened in the peoples republic of Maryland is that the “herd mentality of PC=moral corruptness has taken over. This is why we have “Catholics” supporting abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage and the like.

Posted by WeTheSheeple on Monday, Mar 14, 2011 6:29 PM (EST):

What you are missing is that a legislator is elected to REPRESENT THE PEOPLE of their district, not be a dictator. If the majority of the people in their district favor marriage equality, then that is how the legislator should vote, regardless of their own personal beliefs.

Posted by Paul on Monday, Mar 14, 2011 3:45 PM (EST):

I don’t see why the catholic church and catholic leaders have to force their personal religious beliefs on everyone in Maryland through our civil laws. It’s disrespectful of others that hold different religious views, which are now unlawful because this bill did not pass. A majority of marylanders support equal rights. How was the Catholic church able to kill this bill in an effort to harm gays and lesbians?

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.